CASE NAME	Ajay Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 43
CITATION	2012 AIR SCW 4062, 2012 (8) SCC 43, 2012 CRI. L. J. 3909, AIR 2012 SC( CRI) 1371, 2012 (5) AIR BOM R 331, (2012) 3 CURCRIR 197, 2012 ALLMR(CRI) 3 2711, (2012) 116 ALLINDCAS 86 (SC)
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra
APPELLANT	Ajay Pandit alias Jagdish Dayabhai Patel and Another.
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra
DECIDED ON	17th July 2012

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Ajay Pandit, a dentist by trade, who was found guilty of two distinct murders in the case of Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, which was decided on July 17, 2012. The appellant, referred to in his community as Dr. Jagdish Patel, took advantage of his position by pretending to have contacts with representatives of the US Embassy to lure people with the promise of helping them relocate to the US in search of better opportunities.  The appellant's promises seduced the first victim, Nilesh Bhailal Patel, who was later killed. The appellant killed a woman named Jayashree in a different event. The appellant's need for money to maintain an extravagant lifestyle beyond his reasonable means was the driving force behind both crimes.  The trial court first gave the appellant a life sentence for these offenses. On appeal, however, the Bombay High Court upheld the convictions. It increased the sentence to the death penalty, classifying the offenses as being to the "rarest of rare" circumstances that call for the death penalty.  The appellant then appealed the High Court's ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that there had been procedural errors, specifically a violation of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that the accused be given a chance to be heard before a sentence is imposed. Before increasing the sentence to death, the Supreme Court considered whether the High Court had given the appellant a sufficient chance to offer mitigating circumstances. This case raises important questions about how the death penalty is applied in India, highlighting the need for rigorous adherence to procedural protections and the necessity of making sure the accused is given a fair chance to be heard, particularly when the death penalty is at stake.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, a dentist, was charged with committing these horrible crimes for financial gain by abusing his social and professional position. The appellant's relative was the first victim, Nilesh Bhailal Patel. The appellant enticed Nilesh by promising to help him obtain a visa to immigrate to the United States. Nilesh went to the appellant to complete the arrangements on March 20, 1994, but he never came home. Nilesh's body was later found in the Tapi River in a bag. According to the inquiry, the appellant strangled Nilesh, gave him a chloroform drug, and then disposed of the body. Since the appellant had taken a sizable sum from Nilesh in exchange for the promised visa arrangement, money was the driving force behind this offense. The appellant had a strong relationship with Jayashree, the second victim. The appellant strangled Jayashree and gave her chloroform on April 13, 1994, killing her. Similar circumstances led to the subsequent discovery of her body, which was placed in a body of water after being packed in a suitcase. Given that Jayashree was aware of the appellant's fraudulent operations, it was determined that he committed this murder to remove any possibility of exposure. The appellant's guilt was amply demonstrated by the police investigation, which included forensic evidence, witness statements, and circumstantial evidence. The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of both murders during the trial and gave him a life sentence. The Bombay High Court, however, increased the sentence to death after an appeal, classifying the offenses as cold-blooded, premeditated, and falling under the "rarest of rare" criteria. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contested this ruling, claiming that the High Court had disregarded Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the accused to offer mitigating circumstances before punishment.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the Bombay High Court's decision to increase the appellant's sentence from life in prison to the death penalty was appropriate in light of the specifics of the crimes committed and the "rarest of rare" criterion?
• Whether the High Court gave the appellant a sufficient chance to raise mitigating circumstances before raising the sentence to the death penalty, as required by Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

• The accused's Learned attorney, Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, argued that the High Court had not followed the process outlined in Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or simply "the Cr.P.C.," before increasing the life sentence to death. 
• Given the purpose and context of the 1973 Code's introduction of the new Section 235(2) provision, learned counsel noted that it is undeniably one of the most essential components of the criminal procedure and that failure to comply with it will automatically nullify the order. 

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

• The State's learned attorney, Mr. Shankar Chillarge, argued that the High Court was justified in imposing the death penalty given the facts of the case because it was determined to be an extremely rare instance and the test established by this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, was fully met. 
• According to the learned prosecutor, this case involves the double murder and attempted murder of two more people, and the way it was carried out was graphic. 
• Additionally, it was noted that the process outlined in Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. was completely followed and that there is no justification for overturning the High Court's conviction or punishment.

JUDGMENT

Naturally, the Court explained the nature of the show-cause-notice to the accused. What did the show-cause notice entail? The show-cause notice aimed to determine if the trial court's life sentence may be increased to the death punishment. The Court hasn't really tried to get information from the prosecution or the accused on whether any circumstances could persuade the court to forego the death penalty. The death penalty is an exception rather than the rule, and the court may only impose it in extremely exceptional circumstances. There may be differences in the emotional and psychological states of those who are awaiting execution and those who have been given a life sentence. Even when the accused has remained completely mute, the court is responsible for extracting pertinent data. The High Court made a serious procedural error in this case by failing to properly assimilate and comprehend the purpose and object behind Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. by not approaching the matter from the appropriate perspective while questioning the accused, keeping those pertinent factors in mind.  Under such circumstances, we are inclined to reverse the High Court's decision to impose the death penalty and send the case back to the High Court for consideration following the established standards of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the High Court's conviction is upheld. It is urged that the High Court issue new directions, ideally within six months after receiving a copy of this agreement. To that degree, the appeal is granted.

CONCLUSION

Important issues pertaining to the use of the death penalty and procedural justice in criminal justice are brought to light by the case of Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel vs. the State of Maharashtra. The appellant was found guilty of two horrific killings that were carefully planned and carried out out of duplicity and greed. The evidence against the appellant, which included forensic results, witness statements, and circumstantial evidence, was deemed convincing by the Bombay High Court and the Sessions Court. The High Court used the "rarest of rare" criteria to increase the punishment to the death penalty, citing premeditation, cold-bloodedness, and intentional killings committed for financial gain. The court determined that the appellant's activities threatened social order, emphasizing the irreparable harm done to the victims and their families. The appellant argued, however, that the High Court had violated Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that an accused person be given a chance to explain mitigating circumstances before to being sentenced. This procedural protection is essential, particularly in situations involving the death penalty, because it guarantees that elements like the accused's history, intentions, and capacity for change are sufficiently considered. When determining the appellant's sentence, the Supreme Court considered whether the High Court had adequately adhered to this principle. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that sentencing decisions must weigh the seriousness of the offense against the particular circumstances of the accused, underscoring the significance of procedural justice in capital sentence cases. The court considered whether due process had been followed in imposing the death penalty on the appellant while acknowledging the horrific nature of the acts. In conclusion, the appellant's conviction for the killings was maintained by the Supreme Court, which confirmed the lower courts' findings on his guilt. Nonetheless, the court recognized that rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards is essential in situations involving the death penalty. If procedural errors were found, the court might examine the sentence component to guarantee justice and fairness. This case emphasizes the judiciary's dual duty to uphold procedural integrity while administering justice for horrific crimes, particularly when the death penalty is at stake. It restates the necessity to balance the criminal justice system's retribution, deterrence, and reform tenets.